| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,291 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
195 Posts |
Hi all, My first post on the forum, though I've read a lot here. I just sent my first batch to NGC for grading and I had a couple not do as well as I expected, which, I think, is common. In particular, though, I had a Morgan that I thought was a very likely PL candidate come back just MS64. That is basically my question to you guys. Do you think the grade is correct? I own an MS64 PL Morgan and I sent in the coin in question because it matched so well. To fuel the discussion, I took comparison shots. The coin in the photo is always labeled. If it isn't, the front of the other one visible. So, you're looking at either an MS64 Morgan or an MS64 PL Morgan. Any input would be appreciated. Do you think I should try for a regrade or contact NGC or just live with it? Are they both PL or should both not be PL? I should say, I don't think I can really test PL status in a slab because the reflection comes from the plastic of the slab first. Thanks again, Derek                     |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Its basically a guarantee that some of the coins wont do as well as expected when sending them in. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the value between a 79s 64 and 79s 64pl is like 50 dollars which would make it barely worth it if you got the pl grade considering the cost, to me thats not worth the risk and I would just leave it as is. If your doing a pl set and have reasons other than the money you want it pl you can give it a shot, but I would say to break it out and send it in raw again if you do. Them seeing what they graded it before will bias them that its not a pl
|
|
Valued Member
United States
362 Posts |
Hate to say it, but they got it right.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3755 Posts |
Going by the pics, I have to say it is not PL. A beautiful coin to be sure, but not quite PL.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I think your 1879 is right on the edge, semi-proof like. The important thing is your 1882 is PL. Much harder to come by than 1879 in my opinion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3184 Posts |
nice coins and I would say that it probably just missed the PL. Still a beautiful coin vs normal ms64 morgans that don't look even close to proof like
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
195 Posts |
Thanks for the feedback, and so quickly, too. Should I be asking, then, if the PL coin doesn't deserve that designation (Not that's I'd say anything!).
For those who are saying that NGC got it right, can you articulate why the MS64 doesn't deserve the PL that the MS64 PL got?
I will say this, the cheek on the MS64 has a lot more dings than the cheek of the MS64PL. Maybe they didn't give me the PL but raised the MS number to make up for it?!
Thanks again,
Derek
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
It's not possible to articulate based on the images provided. PL and DMPL designations are defined by a specific standard and you'll have to confirm that yourself, which you can do easily.
A coin which clearly and readably reflects 12pt newspaper type in the fields at a distance of no less than 4", both obverse and reverse, is PL. For DMPL, that distance needs to exceed 6"+.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
From the photos you've provided my grade would be MS63PL for the 79S
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1339 Posts |
The thing that just jumped out at me was the contrast on the PL coin....Man, they're both nice! I think NGC got it correct and I think you got a good grade on the second one
|
|
Valued Member
United States
57 Posts |
I have a Morgan I'm sending in shortly and I believe it is prooflike, I guess we'll find out soon though! Your coins both look beautiful, I'd like to add them to my set!
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,291 |
|
Posted 12/31/2012 8:34 pm
